Got called a stupid racist the other day...

[cookiedough]

yet another reason no facebook for me...

Call me a racist, see if I care?   

[northernvalk]

The proper way for a politician to respond to a single court decision is to keep his mouth shut, especially the PM or any cabinet minister.  Anything else is to undermine the justice system.  Personally, I think the jury's verdict was wrong.  The proper response to a wrong verdict is for the crown or defense to appeal to the next higher court.
[/quote]

WRONG! Well, that's says a lot......I guess you live in a nice part of Calgary.....Or you think race is a defense for repeated illegal activity.....

[Serk]

Call me a racist, see if I care?   

[Wizzard]

I didn't realize this site had censors!!!

It doesn't, it has admins  

And I'm glad it does.  One can easily express his opinion while abiding by the board's rules of the road.  If profanity were commonplace here, I wouldn't be.  Now if we could do something about excessive use of run-on sentences, drunk posting, and multiple exclamation points, this board would be almost perfect!(!!)  

Wow,, you are a real analyst.  
If one finds a perfect board,, don't join it because it wont be perfect anymore

Just what are you saying?! 



 

It was my way of joking with you. Nothing insinuated

[98valk]

what month is "White History Month"?

when are the "White Music Awards" on this year?

what month is the "White Miss White America" beauty contest?

what month is the  "Miss White USA" on tv?

when will the "White Trumpet Awards" on tv?

Tamika Mallory won the black Impact award and spoke at the black trumpet award.  said we need to get rid of the criminal in the white house, and said she will continue to fight for the liberation of her black race. she and many others are completely delusional.    so who really are the rasicts?

[Gavin_Sons]

I think more people need to eat tide pods. Natural Selection

[Wizzard]

and drink Pinesol,, like we did. 

[98valk]

or dead caterpillers off the sidewalk like my little sister did.  She is now a retired 20yr Army veteran.

[Gryphon Rider]

I didn't realize this site had censors!!!

It doesn't, it has admins  

And I'm glad it does.  One can easily express his opinion while abiding by the board's rules of the road.  If profanity were commonplace here, I wouldn't be.  Now if we could do something about excessive use of run-on sentences, drunk posting, and multiple exclamation points, this board would be almost perfect!(!!)  

Wow,, you are a real analyst.  
If one finds a perfect board,, don't join it because it wont be perfect anymore

Just what are you saying?! 

 

It was my way of joking with you. Nothing insinuated

But you implied I wasn't perfect!    

[Wizzard]

I didn't realize this site had censors!!!

It doesn't, it has admins  

And I'm glad it does.  One can easily express his opinion while abiding by the board's rules of the road.  If profanity were commonplace here, I wouldn't be.  Now if we could do something about excessive use of run-on sentences, drunk posting, and multiple exclamation points, this board would be almost perfect!(!!)  

Wow,, you are a real analyst.  
If one finds a perfect board,, don't join it because it wont be perfect anymore

Just what are you saying?! 

 

It was my way of joking with you. Nothing insinuated

But you implied I wasn't perfect!    

Yes I did, because there was only 1 man that was perfect and he walked on water. I have not seen you do that 

[Gryphon Rider]

The proper way for a politician to respond to a single court decision is to keep his mouth shut, especially the PM or any cabinet minister.  Anything else is to undermine the justice system.  Personally, I think the jury's verdict was wrong.  The proper response to a wrong verdict is for the crown or defense to appeal to the next higher court.

WRONG! Well, that's says a lot......I guess you live in a nice part of Calgary.....Or you think race is a defense for repeated illegal activity.....
[/quote]

This trial wasn't about whether Boushie and his buddies were on the farm for legitimate reasons (they weren't; they were there to commit property crimes), but it was about whether Stanley intentionally murdered Boushie (2nd degree murder).  His defence is that his gun misfired when he was firing warning shots in the air, and that the bullets actually fired 20 or so seconds later, when he was pointing the gun at Boushie's head while Boushie was sitting in the car, without Stanley pulling the trigger.  I don't believe there is a reasonable chance that it happened as he said.  I believe he intentionally killed him.  I also believe that Boushie's three companions should be charged with all the crimes they committed that day, and I believe that natives on may reserves have a deserved reputation of targeting nearby farms for theft.

[Serk]

I'm truly thankful that if I were forced to shoot at criminals that were committing crime on my property I wouldn't have to jump through hoops and make up stories about how the firearm accidentally discharged.

Wow. So at what point, if any, ARE you allowed to legally defend yourselves against a violent criminal on your own property?!?!

[98valk]

I'm truly thankful that if I were forced to shoot at criminals that were committing crime on my property I wouldn't have to jump through hoops and make up stories about how the firearm accidentally discharged.

Wow. So at what point, if any, ARE you allowed to legally defend yourselves against a violent criminal on your own property?!?!

in Nazi jersey it better be inside ones' home and not outside, even if they are stealing your car or beating your wife. and even inside ones's home if u have a means of escape u better use it before u shoot. criminals have more rights than the home owner.

[Gryphon Rider]

I'm truly thankful that if I were forced to shoot at criminals that were committing crime on my property I wouldn't have to jump through hoops and make up stories about how the firearm accidentally discharged.

Wow. So at what point, if any, ARE you allowed to legally defend yourselves against a violent criminal on your own property?!?!

Defence of your person or other persons is allowed.  Defence of your property is another issue.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Defences/Defence_of_Property

I am willing to face the courts for my actions defending my loved ones.

[Jess from VA]

I'm no Canadian law expert, but I bet they have basically the same rules as most of us in the US have.  You can use deadly force in self defense, when you reasonably believe you (or those around you) are in imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.  Most US jurisdictions do not allow deadly force to protect property alone.  And some 8 States have a version of Castle Doctrine, which doesn't really change the law regarding use of deadly force, but wards off wrongful death suits if you defended yourself (or others) in your home, or any place you live.

I did some reading on the Stanley case.  In short order, his farm was sort of invaded, a quad was started as if to be stolen, a car rammed into one of his parked cars, and he thought maybe his wife had been run over (she hadn't).  He said he loaded 2 rounds of 60yo ammo in an ancient Tokarev pistol, and fired two in the air (which at trial was found to be perfectly legal in the face of the known facts), and kept pulling the trigger with no result, then approached the deceased's car to yank his keys from the ignition, and reaching in, the gun went off and hit the deceased (driver) behind the ear.  The deceased had a 22. rifle on the front seat with him, but Stanley did not say he pointed it at him (and easily could have). Stanley had no past history or record of bad conduct.  The tribal people had a known and large past history of property crimes, but not murder.  

The trial seemed to have been very thorough, a lot of expert firearm evidence was produced and discussed, including a discussion of hang fires.  There were apparently no tribal/native people on the jury (and I don't know if there were any even in the jury selection pool,  or if any were challenged from the jury by the defense).  Stanley took the stand (often a very bad idea) for hours of direct and cross.  He said he didn't do it on purpose, or in self defense, that it was an accidental discharge.

The options were 2d degree murder (intentional, but not premeditated), manslaughter (wrongful killing with gross negligence, without intent to kill), or acquittal.  The jury deliberated a long time, and had various parts of the evidence replayed or reviewed.... and they acquitted.  And this is the crux of the tribal vs white people uproar.  

Even believing Stanley entirely, they could have convicted of manslaughter for gross negligence in handling an (apparently loaded) firearm.  The jury had reasonable doubt, and acquitted.  

The most unbelievable part of the case (to me), is that any man would only load two (apparently three) rounds in a mag, and shoot (waste) two in the air.  But that is apparently the truth, and shooting two in the air clearly went a long way toward corroborating his stated intent in not shooting at anyone.  A 10-20 second delayed hang fire is indeed a rare (to nonexistent) event.  The jury did not likely believe (or had large reasonable doubt about) Stanley intentionally shot him, and would not convict for manslaughter for an accident (however negligent).

A man would have to be a pretty cool and calculating customer, under all the stress and fear of the moment, to load 3, shoot two in the air, saving one to commit intentional murder, knowing he would argue accidental discharge at his coming trial.   

[Gryphon Rider]

I'm no Canadian law expert, but I bet they have basically the same rules as most of us in the US have.  You can use deadly force in self defense, when you reasonably believe you (or those around you) are in imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.  Most US jurisdictions do not allow deadly force to protect property alone.  And some 8 States have a version of Castle Doctrine, which doesn't really change the law regarding use of deadly force, but wards off wrongful death suits if you defended yourself (or others) in your home, or any place you live.

I did some reading on the Stanley case.  In short order, his farm was sort of invaded, a quad was started as if to be stolen, a car rammed into one of his parked cars, and he thought maybe his wife had been run over (she hadn't).  He said he loaded 2 rounds of 60yo ammo in an ancient Tokarev pistol, and fired two in the air (which at trial was found to be perfectly legal in the face of the known facts), and kept pulling the trigger with no result, then approached the deceased's car to yank his keys from the ignition, and reaching in, the gun went off and hit the deceased (driver) behind the ear.  The deceased had a 22. rifle on the front seat with him, but Stanley did not say he pointed it at him (and easily could have). Stanley had no past history or record of bad conduct.  The tribal people had a known and large past history of property crimes, but not murder.  

The trial seemed to have been very thorough, a lot of expert firearm evidence was produced and discussed, including a discussion of hang fires.  There were apparently no tribal/native people on the jury (and I don't know if there were any even in the jury selection pool,  or if any were challenged from the jury by the defense).  Stanley took the stand (often a very bad idea) for hours of direct and cross.  He said he didn't do it on purpose, or in self defense, that it was an accidental discharge.

The options were 2d degree murder (intentional, but not premeditated), manslaughter (wrongful killing with gross negligence, without intent to kill), or acquittal.  The jury deliberated a long time, and had various parts of the evidence replayed or reviewed.... and they acquitted.

Even believing Stanley entirely, they could have convicted of manslaughter for gross negligence in handling an (apparently loaded) firearm.  The jury had reasonable doubt, and acquitted.  

Pretty good summary, Jess.  I think a manslaughter conviction would have been more just than an acquittal.  I hope it gets appealed by the crown.

[Jess from VA]

Pretty good summary, Jess.  I think a manslaughter conviction would have been more just than an acquittal.  I hope it gets appealed by the crown.

I added more to my post after your quote.

Again, I'm no Canadian law expert, but in the US, there are precious few possibilities of appeal by the prosecution after a jury has acquitted, under double jeopardy protections.  (A lot of people rightfully thought they ought to take another crack at OJ)

In Japan, which has the death penalty (hanging), a man can get life, the state can appeal, and he can get death in the 2d go round.  Not in the US.  And in Japan, the man on death row, is never told when he will be executed, it just happens one morning.  That is pretty nasty.    

[Serk]

Thanks for the explanation. It would seem our Canadian friends have better rights to self defense than I expected (Not quite as bad as the horror stories I've heard out of the UK) but still very restrictive.

I'm glad I live in a place where I can use whatever methods are necessary to not only protect my life and my family's lives, but our hard earner property as well, and protect us from frivolous civil lawsuits if needed.

And I sincerely hope I go peacefully to my grave as a VERY old man having never needed to exercise those rights!

[Jess from VA]

All of Canada does not have the same laws as the Western Provinces.  This may have gone another way in Quebec or the Maritimes, maybe even Ontario.

[Gryphon Rider]

All of Canada does not have the same laws as the Western Provinces.  This may have gone another way in Quebec or the Maritimes, maybe even Ontario.

Criminal law is nation-wide in Canada, though the provinces enforce and prosecute it.

[Jess from VA]

All of Canada does not have the same laws as the Western Provinces.  This may have gone another way in Quebec or the Maritimes, maybe even Ontario.

Criminal law is nation-wide in Canada, though the provinces enforce and prosecute it.

OK, I stand corrected.  Just from general reading, I thought things were more restrictive in the Eastern provinces.